I think a good doctor wouldn’t even say it’s safe. It’s more accurate to say: the potential harm of a single x-ray is small/negligible, and the benefit of being able to correctly diagnose you and create an informed treatment plan is well worth that risk.
Crossing the street isn’t completely safe, but if you need to get to the other side, you take that risk because it’s worth it. But you shouldn’t cross the street willy nilly for no reason, that would be stupidly dangerous. It’s kind of like that.
There’s a current disagreement about radiation dosing policy right now, too. One side things the current approach is fine, the other believes that we are so overly conservative that we are wasting a lot of resources avoiding doses that are inconsequential. This is most relevant if we want to build and operate more nuclear reactors (e.g. for power), but it might also change some x-ray practices.
But, there are few things that are absolutely safe. You can slip, fall, and die in the shower; you can “poison” yourself by drinking too much water. When a medical professional requests an x-ray, they believe the risk is worth the reward.
Well, I think the general public probably is a bit confused about that. But, I think the disagreement is on the exposure of workers, and the practices around that.
IIRC, nuclear reactors for power have surprisingly high operating costs, even tho the fuel costs are quite low, and most of those costs are radiation controls. (And, no one is saying we need to eliminate controls, just dial them back a bit based on better science of how radiation affects humans.)
I think a good doctor wouldn’t even say it’s safe. It’s more accurate to say: the potential harm of a single x-ray is small/negligible, and the benefit of being able to correctly diagnose you and create an informed treatment plan is well worth that risk.
Crossing the street isn’t completely safe, but if you need to get to the other side, you take that risk because it’s worth it. But you shouldn’t cross the street willy nilly for no reason, that would be stupidly dangerous. It’s kind of like that.
There’s a current disagreement about radiation dosing policy right now, too. One side things the current approach is fine, the other believes that we are so overly conservative that we are wasting a lot of resources avoiding doses that are inconsequential. This is most relevant if we want to build and operate more nuclear reactors (e.g. for power), but it might also change some x-ray practices.
But, there are few things that are absolutely safe. You can slip, fall, and die in the shower; you can “poison” yourself by drinking too much water. When a medical professional requests an x-ray, they believe the risk is worth the reward.
What is the argument against nuclear reactors and dosage?
Are you saying that people think they get any elevated radiation dosage around a nuclear power plant at all?
I’m not the OP, nor am I very good at succinctly summarizing what’s in my head in a way that I’m confident would do the topic justice.
The specific term you probably want to look up is “Linear no threshold”.
I think the video Kyle Hill did several months ago though covers the topic very well though.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gzdLdNRaPKc
I have some small nitpicks on how exactly he argued a couple of his points, but his over all point seems reasonable.
Well, I think the general public probably is a bit confused about that. But, I think the disagreement is on the exposure of workers, and the practices around that.
IIRC, nuclear reactors for power have surprisingly high operating costs, even tho the fuel costs are quite low, and most of those costs are radiation controls. (And, no one is saying we need to eliminate controls, just dial them back a bit based on better science of how radiation affects humans.)